Old Town news

I know alot of brown paper is made in the south so I think I had a mental association with brown paper and hardwood trees and magazine paper with softwoods..anyways, cardboard boxes aren't going anywhere, you'd think some mills in maine could be converted to brown production.

It doesn't matter who runs the remaining railroads in all of New England most of the prospects for rail traffic in most if not all of New England is on the skids at best. It doesn't matter where you look things are dismal. Manufacturing, lumber, paper, inbound coal, autos and just about everything else is bad. The only hope for traffic in New England is probably garbage and maybe some IM. Unfortunately railroads are not able to pick their traffic at will, they just sort of have to handle whatever available traffic that they are able to handle and some of it is not very profitable either. You can't maintain a line of railroad to 50 or 60 MPH Federal standards for a bobtail local freight or a small amount of local freight traffic, it is expensive and just not possible.
Noel Weaver

Some would disagree with that assessment.

Smaller railroads all over the country have faced similar predicaments when their captive traffic base goes belly up. Creative thinking and paradigm shifts in customer service have helped them survive.

50 or 60, or even 40 mph isn't required. 25 MPH and adequate crews are.

Pan Am has just now begining to look at other traffic. If it wasnt for the recent LPG need they would already be in a far more precarious situation.

That said, they've been no friend to the mills. Deteriorating track conditions, lack of crews and power have contributed to the shift from rail to trucks. Not a year went by that the big Mills in Maine said they wish they could ship twice as much by rail but the railroad can't handle it. If these are the most outspoken customers were sayang think about the smaller ones.

Pan Am has been blaming their conduct over shrinking traffic for years. They've done very little to reverse this. The region will be better off once Mellon decides he is done.

Noel Weaver wrote: You can't maintain a line of railroad to 50 or 60 MPH Federal standards for a bobtail local freight or a small amount of local freight traffic, it is expensive and just not possible.
Noel Weaver

Unless the Passenger Train card is played....

Noel Weaver wrote:It doesn't matter who runs the remaining railroads in all of New England most of the prospects for rail traffic in most if not all of New England is on the skids at best. It doesn't matter where you look things are dismal. Manufacturing, lumber, paper, inbound coal, autos and just about everything else is bad. The only hope for traffic in New England is probably garbage and maybe some IM. Unfortunately railroads are not able to pick their traffic at will, they just sort of have to handle whatever available traffic that they are able to handle and some of it is not very profitable either. You can't maintain a line of railroad to 50 or 60 MPH Federal standards for a bobtail local freight or a small amount of local freight traffic, it is expensive and just not possible.
Noel Weaver

Tons of opportunity out there in the energy, raw minerals, building construction, and light manufacturing sectors. Some places are finally seeing resurgences and new market opportunities for intermodal, auto, steel and other especially in New Brunswick. Pan Am didn't maintain their bridge line from Waterville east and now are paying the price as they concede traffic to CMQ. Likely, PAR won't make it out of the next decade under its current ownership but with the right owner, it certainly can make huge gains, especially in the Waterville to Mechanicville corridor. Just consider this for a second.... service is better when running NBSR-CMQ-VRS-PAS-NS than it is NBSR-PAR/PAS-NS. Similarly NBSR-CMQ-VRS-NECR-CSX trumps NBSR-PAR-CSX routing. All the while trucking companies in Maine are healthier than ever (even with mill reductions granted they do have a fuel advantage)

. service is better when running NBSR-CMQ-VRS-PAS-NS than it is NBSR-PAR/PAS-NS.[/quote]
I believe this routing does not exist yet, still waiting to see what the stb will rule on what type of interchange rights are defined in the TRO.until then....

CN9634 wrote:Tons of opportunity out there in the energy, raw minerals, building construction, and light manufacturing sectors. Some places are finally seeing resurgences and new market opportunities for intermodal, auto, steel and other especially in New Brunswick. Pan Am didn't maintain their bridge line from Waterville east and now are paying the price as they concede traffic to CMQ. Likely, PAR won't make it out of the next decade under its current ownership but with the right owner, it certainly can make huge gains, especially in the Waterville to Mechanicville corridor. Just consider this for a second.... service is better when running NBSR-CMQ-VRS-PAS-NS than it is NBSR-PAR/PAS-NS. Similarly NBSR-CMQ-VRS-NECR-CSX trumps NBSR-PAR-CSX routing. All the while trucking companies in Maine are healthier than ever (even with mill reductions granted they do have a fuel advantage)

Where would PAR or a new owner make huge gains? What traffic is out there that is being neglected by PAR? Even the posts and threads on railroad.net during the past years spell out the challenges for PAR and all of Maine's railroads once you move beyond the paper industry's finished outbound and raw material inbound traffic, and dispelled the armchair suggestions. Also, there's not that much traffic moving around PAR via CMQ/VRS and given that CMQ service to/from VRS, as chronicled in railroad.net , has not been good I'm inclined to believe the routing is more related to price (or legacy contracts) than service.

Reviewing past suggestions of PAR traffic opportunities neglected we have had light-loading paper, fiber for either domestic consumption or export, french fries, potatos, eastern Canada/US intermodal, bottled or bulk water, crude oil, particular propane moves beyond what is already being pursued, and international container traffic via a Maine port. None possible, practical or without challenges given rail's competitive (dis)advantages, PAR's position or leverage within the rail network, truck or rail competition, limited size, low financial contribution, existing industry or individual company logistics, or limited market opportunities and large capital investment requirements joined hand-in-hand. The notion that PAR is neglecting opportunities and failing to diversify is overly critical of PAR and overly optimistic about PAR traffic opportunities. The notion that they failed to make capital infrastructure investments that would have had to be justified over 25/30 years, especially now evidenced by what is going on with their paper market, is also overly critical, though the past lack of attracting public investment for certain needs, common practice amongst New England's regional and shortline railroads, might be debated.

Test

QB 52.32 wrote:

CN9634 wrote:Tons of opportunity out there in the energy, raw minerals, building construction, and light manufacturing sectors. Some places are finally seeing resurgences and new market opportunities for intermodal, auto, steel and other especially in New Brunswick. Pan Am didn't maintain their bridge line from Waterville east and now are paying the price as they concede traffic to CMQ. Likely, PAR won't make it out of the next decade under its current ownership but with the right owner, it certainly can make huge gains, especially in the Waterville to Mechanicville corridor. Just consider this for a second.... service is better when running NBSR-CMQ-VRS-PAS-NS than it is NBSR-PAR/PAS-NS. Similarly NBSR-CMQ-VRS-NECR-CSX trumps NBSR-PAR-CSX routing. All the while trucking companies in Maine are healthier than ever (even with mill reductions granted they do have a fuel advantage)

Where would PAR or a new owner make huge gains? What traffic is out there that is being neglected by PAR? Even the posts and threads on railroad.net during the past years spell out the challenges for PAR and all of Maine's railroads once you move beyond the paper industry's finished outbound and raw material inbound traffic, and dispelled the armchair suggestions. Also, there's not that much traffic moving around PAR via CMQ/VRS and given that CMQ service to/from VRS, as chronicled in railroad.net , has not been good I'm inclined to believe the routing is more related to price (or legacy contracts) than service.
/quote]

You are 100 percent correct... there is hardly any traffic moving around PAR via THIS routing. CMQ had intentions of trying to do so but were unsuccessful... partial due to the Necr/pas trackage rights squabble. Although I don't think you would see much of a difference in traffic patterns even if stb ruled in favor of pas/vrs/cmq....

I'm hoping the NBSR takes over the Guilford or at least down to near Portland, ME. I want to see if faster speeds would help convincing customers to ship by rail.

QB 52.32 wrote:

CN9634 wrote:Tons of opportunity out there in the energy, raw minerals, building construction, and light manufacturing sectors. Some places are finally seeing resurgences and new market opportunities for intermodal, auto, steel and other especially in New Brunswick. Pan Am didn't maintain their bridge line from Waterville east and now are paying the price as they concede traffic to CMQ. Likely, PAR won't make it out of the next decade under its current ownership but with the right owner, it certainly can make huge gains, especially in the Waterville to Mechanicville corridor. Just consider this for a second.... service is better when running NBSR-CMQ-VRS-PAS-NS than it is NBSR-PAR/PAS-NS. Similarly NBSR-CMQ-VRS-NECR-CSX trumps NBSR-PAR-CSX routing. All the while trucking companies in Maine are healthier than ever (even with mill reductions granted they do have a fuel advantage)

Where would PAR or a new owner make huge gains? What traffic is out there that is being neglected by PAR? Even the posts and threads on railroad.net during the past years spell out the challenges for PAR and all of Maine's railroads once you move beyond the paper industry's finished outbound and raw material inbound traffic, and dispelled the armchair suggestions. Also, there's not that much traffic moving around PAR via CMQ/VRS and given that CMQ service to/from VRS, as chronicled in railroad.net , has not been good I'm inclined to believe the routing is more related to price (or legacy contracts) than service.

Reviewing past suggestions of PAR traffic opportunities neglected we have had light-loading paper, fiber for either domestic consumption or export, french fries, potatos, eastern Canada/US intermodal, bottled or bulk water, crude oil, particular propane moves beyond what is already being pursued, and international container traffic via a Maine port. None possible, practical or without challenges given rail's competitive (dis)advantages, PAR's position or leverage within the rail network, truck or rail competition, limited size, low financial contribution, existing industry or individual company logistics, or limited market opportunities and large capital investment requirements joined hand-in-hand. The notion that PAR is neglecting opportunities and failing to diversify is overly critical of PAR and overly optimistic about PAR traffic opportunities. The notion that they failed to make capital infrastructure investments that would have had to be justified over 25/30 years, especially now evidenced by what is going on with their paper market, is also overly critical, though the past lack of attracting public investment for certain needs, common practice amongst New England's regional and shortline railroads, might be debated.

This is a long winded load of bs.

QB 52.32 wrote:Reviewing past suggestions of PAR traffic opportunities neglected we have had light-loading paper, fiber for either domestic consumption or export, french fries, potatos, eastern Canada/US intermodal, bottled or bulk water, crude oil, particular propane moves beyond what is already being pursued, and international container traffic via a Maine port. None possible, practical or without challenges given rail's competitive (dis)advantages, PAR's position or leverage within the rail network, truck or rail competition, limited size, low financial contribution, existing industry or individual company logistics, or limited market opportunities and large capital investment requirements joined hand-in-hand. The notion that PAR is neglecting opportunities and failing to diversify is overly critical of PAR and overly optimistic about PAR traffic opportunities. The notion that they failed to make capital infrastructure investments that would have had to be justified over 25/30 years, especially now evidenced by what is going on with their paper market, is also overly critical, though the past lack of attracting public investment for certain needs, common practice amongst New England's regional and shortline railroads, might be debated.

So to your point, why is it that railroads even exist at all is they are at a disadvantage competitively? Or that intermodal keeps growing even though truckload is at a huge advantage right now?

This is a long winded load of bs.

Perhaps you could "specify, specifically" where you disagree?

The refusal to objectively place blame upon the railroad where it is deserved.

There was no such refusal in that post. What he DID say was that criticism has been overly harsh and opportunities have been overstated.